Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandigarh vs Dr.Vinod Veena And Another on 25 July, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
Mamta
CR No.3187-2014 1
2014.07.30 14:33
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CR No.3187-2014
Date of Decision: July 25, 2014
Mrs. Darshana Sharma and another ...Petitioners
vs.
Dr.Vinod Veena and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr.Sudhir Paruthi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.M.S.Sachdev, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?
***
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J (Oral)
Status report in the shape of affidavit of Darshana Sharma - petitioner no.1 filed in Court today is taken on record.
The order of the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar has attained finality. Warrants of possession stand issued in execution proceedings. The objections of the petitioning tenants have been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21st April, 2014. In the affidavit filed today, it is deposed that they are in the process of re-locating to some other premises and are making arrangements for shifting the school from the demised premises in order to comply with the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. It is further stated that some negotiations are ongoing through a property dealer with respect to two properties located at village Ladhewali Mamta CR No.3187-2014 2 2014.07.30 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document within the municipal limits of Jalandhar and an agreement to sell is likely to be executed and a sale deed registered within a period of four months therefrom. An undertaking has accordingly been given to shift the school and vacate the premises in the aforesaid timeline the moment the sale deed of the new property is executed in favour of the petitioners.
These reasons are no longer available to the petitioners to postpone their eviction and delay delivery of vacant possession. Such a prayer could well have been sought either from the learned Rent Controller or from this Court when the final orders were passed. It can safely be assumed that such a prayer was turned down, if it was made. When those orders have attained a finality and no indulgence having been shown by this Court to the petitioners by grant of time to leave the premises then it appears unfair to continue the tenants in possession indefinitely till such time as the sale deed is executed over which the tenants can have no unilateral control. The prayer for enlargement of time to deliver vacant possession can have no legal basis or an acceptable foundation to grant such prayer and hence is not an acceptable plea in the face of warrants of possession issued to recover possession.
When this Court issued notice of motion on 7th May, 2014 to the respondents, it was on the limited question arising out of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that his clients would need some time to deliver possession of the demised premises. It was given out that 60 odd students are enrolled in the school and their studies would be disrupted in case intervention is refused on the merits of the case and some reasonable time is not given to the school to shift. It was this plea which impelled this Mamta CR No.3187-2014 3 2014.07.30 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court to issue notice and thus on 4th July, 2014 the petitioner No 1 was called upon to file a status report with respect to shifting of the school in pursuance of which the affidavit has been filed in Court today. Whether an agreement to sell comes into existence within the time sought or to figure when would the sale deed/s in fact be executed and registered before the Sub Registrar are matters largely in the realm of conjectures fraught with uncertainty and the possible pit falls that may lie in the way, of which the respondents can have no control and would remain mere bystanders as time flies by awaiting what may or may not happen.
Learned counsel for the respondents is adamant and rightly so that delivery of possession based on an eviction order should not be postponed to a happening of a contingent fact. It is, therefore, not possible to continue with the unlawful possession of the petitioners till such time the sale deed is executed enabling the petitioners to shift from the demised premises. It cannot be lost sight of that this Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenants against the ejectment order of the learned Rent Controller as far back as on 15th January, 2013. The objections to the execution proceedings were filed by the petitioners before the executing court on 27th July, 2013 which stand dismissed and the petitioners had more than reasonable time to make alternative arrangements. Against the order declining objections the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at a stage when warrants of possession stand issued. On merits, this Court found no valid ground for interference and limited the consideration for grant of time for eviction. This Court can show no further indulgence. Unfortunately, the petitioners are also admittedly in arrears of rent which to Mamta CR No.3187-2014 4 2014.07.30 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document make things worse is stated to be nominal. The prayer to make occupation of the premises quo terminus with execution and registration of the proposed sale deed is rejected.
At the end of the day both the learned counsel agree that in case the petitioners give an undertaking to this Court that they would vacate the premises and hand over possession of the demised premises within three months from today i.e. by 27th October, 2014 and by paying the arrears of rent due before the executing Rent Controller then upon such terms the landlord would have no objection to this arrangement being put in place. The respondents have indeed taken a fair position before this court sympathetic towards the travails the students community might face by sudden disruption of class work. The concession shown is highly appreciated.
Consequently, the petitioners would hand over peacefully the vacant possession of the demised premises by 27th October, 2014 to the respondents since this is acceptable to both parties as a via media. Therefore, the affidavit of the petitioner no.1 is accepted as one binding both the petitioners to enable the petitioners to vacate the premises within the time allowed as agreed upon with the least trouble as possible caused. The affidavit will be taken as an undertaking given to this Court.
Ordered accordingly.
The petition stands disposed of in the above terms and the undertaking recorded.
July 25, 2014 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) mamta JUDGE